jump to last post 1-30 of 30 discussions (349 posts)

Michael Moore: "This Country is Not Broke"

  1. AnnCee profile image79
    AnnCeeposted 5 years ago

    He says "we've" allowed a few rich people to take all the money and keep it.  And "we" need to get it back from them.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/really- … from-them/

    Anti-capitalism in a big NUT shell.

    1. Glenn Raymond profile image61
      Glenn Raymondposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I am in full agreement.  What rock did he pop out from under, or who let him come out in the first place?

      Thank you for this great forum post AnnCee.

      1. Robertbloggert profile image78
        Robertbloggertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I guess the same one Joe the (not a) plumber did, but then I bet your all for him popping up.
        The crazy thing is if Joe would actually become a real plumber he could have Union support and actually make a descent enough wage to become a small business owner. Huh like thats what he ever wanted to do, and why would he I'm sure the Koch brothers pay much better.
        For about 15 minutes anyway, just ask Palin!!
        All Michael Moore does is tell the truth and reveal the true scum in our country.

        1. nwind profile image60
          nwindposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Huh?
          Micheal Moore ONLY TELLS THE TRUTH.
          Which planet?

    2. bgamall profile image84
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, you need to look at this chart and the two circles to see what is radically wrong in America. The issue is the top 1 percent have gone berserk in ill gotten gains from the ponzi housing and dot com bubbles.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/too-big- … hey-2011-3

      Be sure to look at the big circle money flow and the small circle. It looks like the sun and the earth. The big circle is a massive and dangerous ponzi and is basically immoral and illegal.

    3. Stevennix2001 profile image84
      Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are aware by merely talking about him or anything he says, then you're giving him exactly what he wants.  Like you, I don't really care much for Michael Moore as a person, as I tend to think he's a hypocrite condemning capitalism while openly profiting off of the same system he condemns.  Not only that, but he tends to brainwash people with half truths and misconstrued facts, as he often tries to blur the lines of commercialism with capitalism a lot. 

      However, as much as I hate the guy as a person, I do think he's one of the best documentary film makers there is.  Sure, his tactics of talking about controversial content while pissing people off is foul play, but it works.  Your talking about him aren't you?  Did you know that the average Howard Stern and Michael Moore hater listens and watches them more often than even their own fans?  On virtue of they want to hear what they'll say next.  Therefore, you may not realize this, but your actually HELPING him by even bringing up this topic into forums.  I'm just saying.

      1. bgamall profile image84
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You were named after Stevie Nix weren't you? smile I wrote a hub about her. Unless you are too old and it was a coincidence you were likely named after her.

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image84
          Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You know, I get that a lot around here.  However, believe it or not, my screen name is actually derived off something else entirely.  wink  lol  However, I'll definitely be sure to check out your hub the first chance i'll get.  thanks. smile

          1. bgamall profile image84
            bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If you like pretty women check it out. And she is a musical genius too.

            Thanks for the info back.

    4. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do you actually think that there is something about Capitalism that isn't cancerous to the Earth, and the human race?

      1. bgamall profile image84
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, communism failed and crony capitalism could fail. That would leave nothing.

        1. 0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          @bgamill. And you honestly believe that communism, socialism, and capitalism are the only three governing systems to choose from?

          There's been many through the millenia - tribal elders, feudalism, monarchies, facism, you name it.

          The challenge is now, not to replace capitalism with something that doesn't work, but to create a new one that works in the long term to sustain humanity.

          1. 0
            WildIrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Socialism and capitalism,  are economic systems; they are not forms of government.

            1. 0
              Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              True. However, they overlap to some degree. The point is that the choices isn't  only between two or three systems. There is room to create an infinite number of systems that will work. It simply means people must get out of the box... and start applying some creative solutions.

            2. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It works somewhat in our Canadian friendly dictatorship

          2. Robertbloggert profile image78
            Robertbloggertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There are good things about all of these systems, the problem is not the system it's who's cheating the system. Promoting big corporations would be a good idea if they actually needed it. But in this time period they don't pay their fair taxes as is, nevermind the fact that they also don't just make their profits by what their production is. They buy their own stocks they sell their own stocks, hmmm now that seems like a conflict of interest.
            And thus why would they care about meager employees or want to pay them fairly. Thats not how they make their $$$$ today, I think it should be just as punishible for CEO's to buy or sell stocks for their own company, as it is for a trader to act on insider information! Isn't that the same thing???? Go Unions!!!

          3. bgamall profile image84
            bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We have a form of fascims. Tribes are quite inefficient. We hopefully will lump along but sometimes I wonder.

    5. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      rich people don't take money, we voluntarily give it to them

      (unless we're talking about bailouts or subsidies, or tariffs)

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I went out to buy food and had to spend some time deciding if I wanted food or not!

        1. 62
          ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How much time did you have to spend deciding if you would pay the taxes on it?

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Not one second.
            I accept that if I am to live in a society that looks after your tired, your poor,
            Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
            The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
            Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

            I have to pay my way!

            1. 62
              ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Not one second because you had no choice, right?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                There is a difference.
                I pay taxes and the money stays largely in this country and benefits many, possibly even myself at sometime.

                I buy food and often the money doesn't stay in the country, benefits only a few and will never benefit me.

                This is moving away from the point I was making anyway, which was Evan's claim to spend all bar taxes voluntarily and my disputing the voluntary element.

                1. 62
                  ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Did you have a choice to pay the tax or not?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Generally no, but neither do I have the choice to buy food or not, so what exactly is the point you are trying to make?

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Short, I'm not even sure what his argument is.

                    Apparently if the government does something that he doesn't like it's ok, but if the private sector does something, it's evil because of PROFITS.

                    Aside from that, I honestly don't understand his argument.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ...what is your argument?

      2. Robertbloggert profile image78
        Robertbloggertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        (unless we're talking about bailouts or subsidies, or tariffs)
        True!!
        So basically it was Bushy who stole the money and gave it to them!

        1. nwind profile image60
          nwindposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not man your man child but Bushy.
          Get a kick out of you marxist/unioists.

    6. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yup.

      I do agree with Moore that this Country isn't broke.  But he has no business trying to take it out of the hands of anyone who's rightfully earned it.  I saw an interview of his a while ago; can't remember who it was with...maybe Shawn Hannity.....and Moore was very secretive about how much money HE makes.  Reckin he wouldn't want to have to give up any of it, but he would take it from other rich people!
      All the hidden or laundered money should be taken back from the corrupt people, plus kept out of the hands of groups who want to do research on such things as the dna of lice and the sex habits of monkeys, etc.   At least for a while.  Long enough to get us back on-track.   The lice will still be there, the monkeys will still be there, all to scrutinize and research and calculate about in due time.

    7. dutchman1951 profile image61
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      After working for the World Bank all these years I can yes, he is right we are "NOT" broke, but

      for entirly different reasoning it is so. We are being lied to and manipulated on all fronts now, no good.

    8. Flightkeeper profile image78
      Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's funny, I don't recall this windbag giving away the millions that he's earned from his movies, especially since he's suing his studio execs and accusing them of stealing a mere couple of million dollars from him.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes of course all people with any money are only too willing to have their earnings stolen aren't they.

        1. 62
          ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Liberals sure seem to . Oh wait, sorry, they are only too willing to have OTHER PEOPLE'S earnings stolen.

          1. bgamall profile image84
            bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Are you in the top 10 or 20 percent? If not you are arguing against yourself.

            1. 62
              ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That's a tired old liberal bromide; arrogant, presumptuous, and untrue.

              1. bgamall profile image84
                bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So you won't answer my question Short?

            2. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              They all are arguing against themselves!

              I've never seen so many people standing with their pants round their ankles shouting shaft me next!

              They have all swallowed the lie and will fight to the death to preserve the right to be shafted by people who, if they recognise them at all,laugh at them.

        2. Flightkeeper profile image78
          Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sorry, were you being ironic about people earning money not liking it when it's stolen from them, like when the socialist government steals and redistributes, which you approve of?

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, taxes are written into law and if they take anybody by surprise then, well, . . .

            1. Flightkeeper profile image78
              Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So because the government takes it in the form of tax even though the government is taking far more than what they are getting back in terms of services from said government, that would be okay with you because they call it a tax?

              And since that windbag keeps saying that the rich are keeping it, since he is of the rich, I'm surprised he doesn't take his own advice and  give his money away instead of hanging onto his money.  Don't you think that would make him less hypocritical?

    9. SMOMarketingWiz profile image60
      SMOMarketingWizposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Anti-capitalism is not the solution to stand against all sorts of hypocrisy. The Govt. is only a driven instance by both structure. So, we should acknowledge that if capitalism is our main economic resource then why should we support anti-capitalism for a loss support.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It isn't anti capitalism to say that the system is unbalanced and too few people hold too much of the money, it's just common sense!

        1. 62
          ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Too much money" is BS. The only people who can have "too much money" are the government and other thieves.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            In other words "Stop taking taxes off me that might help the undeserving poor and allow me to give even more to the deserving rich"

          2. bgamall profile image84
            bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The Saudis gave the people more money to avoid a revolution. When the people at the top are greedy and when they don't help mainstreet, it could prove Marx right. He said a world economic cartel would impoverish the masses. We had ponzi loans and even Clinton's mentor Quigley said the same thing:

            "The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

            Yet Clinton conspired with Phil Gramm to repeal Glass-Steagall anyway. Shame on him.

  2. Cagsil profile image78
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Michael Moore- the true hypocrite. lol lol

    1. AnnCee profile image79
      AnnCeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not to mention moron. 

      What do these anti-capitalists plan to do after they've taken away all the money from the rich people who made it out of sweat they stole from the poor?

      Where's money going to come from after they've flushed that down the social engineering toilet?

      They gonna start stealing sweat off the poor and magically transforming it into money?


      Oh wait!!!!!!!!   There won't be anymore poor people!   Where the bleep they gonna get more money????????????????

      1. bgamall profile image84
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It is not a question about being anti capitalist. it has more to do with being against crony capitalism, or corporatism, which is not capitalism. There is nothing capitalistic at the top. it is all a small club of wealthy people beyond anything seen in the history of the world.

        It is actually ruining real capitalism. It is no longer battling the competition, Ann, it is the elimination of all competition.

        1. AnnCee profile image79
          AnnCeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I understand there are serious problems but Communism is not now and never was and never will be the answer.  With the present system there is at least a chance that we can gain more protections and limit the power of the overlords.  Communism always fails and it is an immoral ideology that makes slaves of people.

          1. bgamall profile image84
            bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            How is it that we have communism? How will we have communism? You are very brainwashed and here is why. As Roubini has said, the profits are privatized and the losses are socialized. That is not communism. in communism the profits go to the party. In fascism, the profits go to the big business and most of the time through war profiteering and through murder and through ponzi, swindling lending.

            And free checking is coming to an end. So get prepared to pay, bank lovers!  http://www.thenation.com/blog/158965/ba … igher-fees

            Ann, here is the deal regarding your views, they are talking points. There is no substance behind them. Fascism is the dictatorship of the corporation and that is what we have. If you can't see it I am sorry for you. If you are not in the top 10 percent of income you are defending people who are not in your condition.

            Think of this, when you give money to the bank in the form of deposits you are lending the bank money. And yet, the banks, greedy and broke as they are, are desperate to charge the people who are lending them money a fee.

            And that after they gave easy money loans that artificially drove up the prices of real estate until the crash came. And it was preplanned.

            1. 62
              ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Here we go again: "banks and big business! banks and big business!"


              endlessly repeated like some liberal mantra that will reveal mystic truths leading to a socialist utopia!

              Throw in a loony conspiracy theory here and there for effect and it's a complete, portable agenda that requires no further thought.

              1. bgamall profile image84
                bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It is not liberal and it is a conspiracy. You can read Ron Paul, far from being a liberal, or Mike Shedlock, far from being a liberal, and you can understand it.

                If you just want to rant you won't understand it. The volume of money on Wall Street far exceeds money in the real economy. It has reached critical mass and may cause a permanent underclass in the US economy and an end to the middle class.

                While I hope that does not happen it could. When you have professors of prestigious universities in the east calling for a replacement for the dollar as the world reserve currency you can see that Bernanke plans to tank the dollar and your gas prices could skyrocket. Hope you can afford it.

                1. 62
                  ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not going to point out the mental illnesses that often manifest in a need to believe in conspiracies because you're entitled to you opinion in any case. However, it is unrealistic to expect that normal people will take such things seriously.

                  1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
                    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "Normal People!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

                    Normal People???????????

                    Normal people think that the super bowl is an important part of their lives. Normal people think that the Federal Reserve is part of the United States Government.  Normal people think that wealth is endless, and that petro dollars never cease.  Normal People are idiots.

                  2. bgamall profile image84
                    bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Short Story, why don't you identify yourself if you are going to get personal? I am done with you if you don't.

                2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
                  Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm starting to really really like you, Sir!

        2. weholdthesetruths profile image59
          weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Crony capitalism is only possible in a socialist state.

        3. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          bgam

          It is not a question about being anti capitalist. it has more to do with being against crony capitalism, or corporatism, which is not capitalism. There is nothing capitalistic at the top. it is all a small club of wealthy people beyond anything seen in the history of the world.

          Good point!

      2. Cagsil profile image78
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What do you know? We agree on something. lol
        The object isn't to take away ALL the money. Just much which is illegally obtained through deceptive practices.
        This is a cynical statement and should the money be used properly, then things would be different yes, but better. And, no I am not for socialism if that's what you are thinking, so you can take that thought and throw it out the window.
        No. That makes no sense.
        People always spend money they have, so the rich would still make money. The "poor" as you put it, would be need to be better educated and shown the correct path forward, which is obvious that they are missing presently, due to the corporatism presently plaguing society as a whole.

        1. AnnCee profile image79
          AnnCeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Spoken like a true progressive social engineer.  "The poor would have to be shown. . ."

          1. Cagsil profile image78
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            roll

            Ignorance is blissful. You must be a very happy person. lol

            1. bgamall profile image84
              bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Ann is a talking point addict. Just like Lady love. They have not delved deeply enough into the issues to realize that mainstreet has been ripped off by a massive transfer of wealth to the top 2 percent of the population. Massive.

            2. dutchman1951 profile image61
              dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              AnnCee, poor will never be shown. Poverty is Big Business, big profit.

              the welfare housing industry, the high interest for poor folks, the extra monies for poor neighborhoods, that never reaches them, the set up of welfare organizations and the salaries earned for directors etc......all the big tax free business of charity.  It's to profitable for a rich philanthropic, to rich to give up.

              They need poor to make billions off of. If they educate them then the poor figure it out!   Look at present day Egypt.... A younger and smarter population, smarter than the dictatorial regime controling them.

              1. 62
                ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You don't suppose it would be more beneficial to "Big Business" to have more consumers with the means of purchasing goods and services?



                People go to such lengths with their 'ideologies'...

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It's a fine balance between paying people enough and keeping wages down. Keeping wages down entails a significant level of unemployment.
                  Just because people are unemployed that's no reason not to make money off them.

                  1. 62
                    ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "Keeping wages down" is not an end in itself for any reasonable business, it's just more hysterical fantasizing by extreme lefties. Wages are kept where companies believe they need to be in order to turn a profit while remaining competitive enough to attract talented workers. Higher wages would mean companies are doing well enough to pay higher wages = good. Higher wages would mean more consumers capable of purchasing more goods and services = good.

                    Watch what happens when we vote out obama and unemployment really goes down. Companies will start by hiring more part-time and temp workers, then gradually increase more full-time and salaried employees as profits become more secure.

                2. dutchman1951 profile image61
                  dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  people unemployed do not take loans, but poor folks do, and the risk factors find a way into the loan structured payment plan, and monies are made off of it, it is big proffit and harder on those folks to pay it. poor folks buy goods and services also.  poor or low income is not restrictive on needs, just harder to satisfy. With to many people praying on them;

                  example Arrons rent to own, pawn places, loan places with extreme interest rates because banks refuse those people for safer loans due to income levels. Being poor does not mean you will not pay, more of them stay on-time than do folks wo have the incomes.

                  The cities are ripe with alternate financing places. and they are profitable for a reason. The peole have needs. 

                  Wages are not good, 10.00 an hour can not get you through a 30 year note on a house or a 72 month note on a reliable car. or raise kids properly.

                  Jobs are not plentyfull and idealy yes business would mch prefer a more solid citizen, but who today is of the philosophy like Henery Ford ....who,  which CEO tells you higher wages means more money in the community and more done for society, Ford said it, but that was then, not now. think...


                  I am alking facts, street level facts, nohing ideal about it

                  1. 62
                    ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    A lot more money is made off of people who actually repay their loans, so the above is just jive.

              2. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                dutchman
                AnnCee, poor will never be shown. Poverty is Big Business, big profit.

                They need poor to make billions off of. If they educate them then the poor figure it out!   Look at present day Egypt.... A younger and smarter population, smarter than the dictatorial regime controling them.


                Time to change the golden whip, starting From Egypt to the domino effect to the USA

      3. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        @Ann CEE. It's very easy. The Federal Reserve, a for-profit company, simply prints some more.

        What I don't get is why so many defend these rich thieves. A lot of them are doing exactly what Madoff was doing. They just haven't been caught yet. Why do you defend all these people so much?

        There's nothing wrong with capitalism. There's something wrong with the number of people who are using the flaws in capitalism to milk the system.

        Robert Reich spoke about it in his book called 'super capitalism'.

        Internationally, it has been known for the last decade that there has been an enormous transfer of wealth from the middle classes to the upper classes. This has NOT been the result of the rich been more clever or more talented. It's been the result of them being more callous, more thieving, more dishonest, etc.

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
          weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And them being in Congress.

  3. TomC35 profile image59
    TomC35posted 5 years ago

    Well, by definition pure capitalism means 1% of the population could control up to 99% of the wealth..or heck, even 100%.  Is that okay by you?

    Why not admit why the country is in debt while at it.  All the talk about social security, Medicare and social problems does not touch where the bulk of the money goes.  All that is 12%.  Military and non-appropriated spending covers the rest.  That is not mostly to cover our service people either.  It is to give away big money contracts to a few large companies, who do not employ lots of American citizens by the way, with no bidding..such as Halliburton, a company now located in Dubai.  Funny,how Bush's cronies decried the middle east and terrorism, but here is Cheney's old company taking American dollars while headquartered over there now.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Without the complicity of the state how does one CONTROL 100% of the wealth?  A price regulated free market place is the mechanism whereby economic goods cannot be totally controlled.  It requires massive police power to gain total control over an economic good or process.  Without the state there would be no monopolies because a monopoly requires an alternative good or process be developed and used resulting in an end to the monopoly.  To stay free one must refrain from controlling wealth but instead control the policing authority of the state.

      1. salt profile image63
        saltposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        so we need an alternative or competing govt.

        If one raises a tax, the other could subsidize.

        If one goes to war, the other could declare peace.

    2. bgamall profile image84
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What Ann needs to realize is that Marx predicted that this would happen to capitalism, that 1 percent controls most of the wealth. And the only thing that caused Marx to be wrong were union inroads, government pay, help for the disadvantaged, and medical assistance.

      Take that away and Marx will be correct. The only buffer to the failure of capitalism is the transfer of some wealth back down the food chain. Whether that is by higher wages, medicaid, food stamps or whatever, if it isn't done, our country could fail.

      That does not mean that the debt incured could not ultimately be dangerous. It could. That is why the government is trimming at the state and local levels. But that in itself could hurt the output of the US if done too drastically.

      1. 62
        ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        marx (how did I know he would come up?) was completely full of it from the very point he stopped analyzing history and started fantasizing about the future. (his interpretation of history was wrong too, but at least he wasn't just flat-out making that up).

        1. bgamall profile image84
          bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Did you join Hubpages just to criticize everything I say or are you going to produce a hub? Why don't you produce a hub proving Marx wrong and if I am encouraged by it I will link to it. Marx predicted a financial order of the wealthy swallowing everything else up. He is getting very close to being accurate.

          If you write a hub and prove this is not the case, let me know and I will read it. This guy posts at Business Insider once in awhile. Check out his charts: http://www.zentrader.ca/blog/?p=5267

          1. 62
            ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Is there a reason you are trying to deflect and discredit? I don't need to demand you write anything else in order to point out that marx was not only wrong but indirectly responsible for the deaths of upwards of a hundred million human beings.

            But...but you go ahead and continue to advocate for  that sort of ideology if you can live with yourself...

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Flippin' 'eck, the pen is indeed mightier than the sword!

              At that level of indirect, we are all responsible!

              1. 62
                ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Not even close

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Come on! You claim that Marx by speaking out against capitalism was indirectly responsible for millions of deaths!

                  How?

                  1. 62
                    ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That's not what I said, strawman.

                    Have a gander at EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT TO BUILD A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT BASED ON HIS IDEAS and then note the corresponding body count.

      2. weholdthesetruths profile image59
        weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        marx was a frigin moron.   He lacked even the most fundamental powers of common sense.   

        Please dont' cite the master of insanity to me as an economic authority.

  4. 69
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    Michael Moron.
    When did he get his degree in economics?

  5. BillyDRitchie profile image60
    BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago

    ".....He says "we've" allowed a few rich people to take all the money and keep it.  And "we" need to get it back from them......."

    I'm wondering where this big pile of money is that we were all able to just come in and "take".  I can only speak for myself of course, but what I have I EARNED through providing a service that people were sufficiently interested in paying me money for.

    Again, will somebody please tell me exactly how much of my income they believe they are entitled to?  I've got my checkbook in hand......

    1. Doug Hughes profile image62
      Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Constitution places no limit on how much the government can tax. The highest rate started in the Great Depression - 93% for the richest rich.

      I doubt you would have qualified for the high rate. If you paid any taxes last year,you paid more than CitiBank, JPMorganChase, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Boeing, Wells Fargo, Bank of America.

      Speaking as a liberal, my goal is fair taxes.

      1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
        BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Can I therefore assume you would be a fan of the (get ready) Fair Tax?

        1. Doug Hughes profile image62
          Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The 'fair tax' you speak of is as fair as the Patriot Act is patriotic. Not a bit.

          1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
            BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            A little specificity, please...what is it about the Fair Tax that you find so unfair?

    2. bgamall profile image84
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Billy, trust me, you aren't in the top 1 percent: http://www.zentrader.ca/blog/?p=5267

      1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
        BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Doesn't matter.  Money earned is money earned.  It is theirs, not yours.  What part of that is so difficult to understand?

        1. TomC35 profile image59
          TomC35posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Doesn't matter.  Money earned is money earned.  It is theirs, not yours.  What part of that is so difficult to understand?"

          So even though the divide keeps growing and a handful of people could end up with all the money you see no problem?

          1. lady_love158 profile image60
            lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Lol!! No one is going to end up with ALL the money! Rich people are only trying to encourage you to become one of them!

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That is the best laugh I've had for ages!

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Money had the least to do with happiness and I want to be rich like them.

                I rather be loving what I do, in which I do anyways.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes.
                  I see how bitter and twisted the hunt for the mighty dollar makes some people, I'm glad to have no part of it.
                  I work at what I want to work at. I work when I want, to pay my bills and I'm happy.

                  I don't yearn after the newest and biggest motor nor the latest fashions.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                    Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Good for you

            2. Daniel Carter profile image90
              Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Rich people protect their money flow from other people so they can remain rich. They don't want other people to be as rich as them, they just don't want other poor people living in dire poverty, which makes them feel guilty for their life style.

              1. 62
                ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Who says 'they' don't want other people to be as rich as 'them'?



                Most of this jive is just plain old bitterness and envy.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, assuming there is not an infinite amount of money, others as rich as them would mean less for them.

                  1. 62
                    ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That does not make sense.

                2. Daniel Carter profile image90
                  Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I have plenty of wealthy friends. I'm not bitter at all about their wealth. I have been given a few nice opportunities as a result. I like my wealthy friends and celebs, but I'm just calling it as I see it, by the experiences I've had.

                  1. 62
                    ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    As am I

          2. BillyDRitchie profile image60
            BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Okay, Tom, maybe you will finally be the one to answer the question......exactly how much of someone else's income do you believe you are entitled to?

            And why should someone who has made wise business and financial decisions be forced through government to prop up those who did not?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Because we are civilised. I do not want to live in a third world country where beggars abound and the earth is covered in shanty towns.

              I want to live a life fairly free from crime and to do that in a fairly clean environment.

              I want to be able to get into my car and drive quickly and safely. I don't want to drive at a speed no better than walking.

              It's not a question of how much of somebody else's income am I entitled to, it's a question of how much am I prepared to pay for security and comfort.
              Remember there are very few people who escape taxes but the ones who pay least are generally the richest.

              1. lady_love158 profile image60
                lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                By what measure??? The top 10% of wage owners in the usa paid 70% of the taxes the bottom 50% paid just 3%! That's a pretty progressive tax code!

                http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Off the ball again!
                  Bill was arguing against paying any tax, I was justifying paying tax.
                  Nowhere did I mention how much anybody paid.

                  1. lady_love158 profile image60
                    lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I was responding to this statement:

                    "Remember there are very few people who escape taxes but the ones who pay least are generally the richest."

  6. wormdo profile image60
    wormdoposted 5 years ago

    I completely agree with him. Have a look at how much corporations were (or rather, weren't) taxed in the past few years.

  7. 62
    ShortStoryposted 5 years ago

    Isn't pantload Moore a very rich person himself? Bloated, filthy hypocrite.

  8. lady_love158 profile image60
    lady_love158posted 5 years ago

    ... says the fat rich liberal that hates America! Why doesnt he move to Cuba... he loves that country sooo much!

    1. Doug Hughes profile image62
      Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      News flash, LaLO! Michael Moore is a patriotic American, as I am, as are a host of liberals who know the US Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers. We have a different view of the goals set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution. We aren't going anywhere. What I can't complete in my lifetime will be continued by my children.

      Get used to it.

      1. lady_love158 profile image60
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Michael Moors is a hypocrite and a liar a perveyor of misinformation for profit... he lauded Cuba and their health care...well if he thinks they are so great he should move there! He sure as heck isn't patriotic... I'm not even sure he's American!

    2. bgamall profile image84
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Michael Moore is more patriotic than the people who are stealing you and me blind. Here is a joke that pretty much says it all:

      A union worker, a member of the Tea Party, and a CEO are sitting at a table.
      In the middle of the table there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it.
      The CEO reaches across the table, takes 11 cookies, looks at the Tea
      Partier and says:
      "Look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."

      If you don't really understand what is happening Lady Love, then your party will get a rude awakening. Now, I am no fan of the Democrats. Just the lesser of two evils.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
        weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Moore is a lying, greedy, dishonest to the core sleazeball, with loyalty to nothing but money and cheeseburgers.

        1. bgamall profile image84
          bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Except that he has exposed a lot of ills at considerable risk to his own safety. That is noble. You won't see the banksters risking their own safety.

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
            weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Exposed nothing.   It's all propaganda, and no truth to it.

            1. bgamall profile image84
              bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You are so wrong. It is not propaganda that Bush/Cheney were involved in 911 and it is not propaganda that the banksters are ripping America off. Read my hubs.

              I don't agree that we can have zero drop in wages in a globalized society. But if society is globalized, then why are Americans paying too much for gas and houses? People try to prop houses up while wages decline. That is not right.

              Just remember, wehold, the American revolution was fought primarily to kick the central bank of England off our shores. Crony capitalism reversed that revolution. Perhaps you don't understand the nature of the American revolution.

              1. 0
                jerrylposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                bgamall,  You are fighting an uphill battle against people that cannot comprehend just what the federal reserve and it's fractional reserve banking system is doing to this nation.

                some are just to ignorant, some just apathetic and others are in a position that makes them want to prolong this ponzi monetary system as long as possible, because they may be benefitting from it more than others.

                They can't seem to get away from the gladiator misdirection games that the PTB present to them.  They fall for it and continue to play partisan games they are being fed, while they are continuing to be ripped off by the system.
                The truth can only be found by understanding how money is created, how it gets into circulation, and where the money to pay interest on borrowed money comes from?   Get rid of this ponzi scheme and you will solve most of our nations, or for that matter, the worlds problems.

                All money is debt, and we cannot pay debt with debt!!!!!

                1. joshhunt83 profile image60
                  joshhunt83posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Couldn't agree more. The monetary system should be called the debt system. To control a debt is to control a nation.

        2. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Weholdthesetruths  I don't agree, accept the cheeseburger part.

          Why let allow most of the third world countries triple the USA economic growth, that is proof the rich over controlling the USA and it’s not working,

          Moore specks for most of the people, (little guy). Nothing wrong in making money, it just the greedy has been overdone and the people are the true leader throughout human history and I say, Good for America for finally waking up from sleeping the American dream.

          Otherwise, what do I care, I am Canadian, free and secure.

          1. 62
            ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            " I am Canadian, free and secure."


            You're welcome.

        3. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "I hate capitalism.... thank god I'm making millions by using it!"

          1. bgamall profile image84
            bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There is a difference in hating capitalism and hating what we have now. Fascistic corporatism is not real capitalism. Feel free to hate it. It is stealing money out of your pocket by the minute.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Right - the thing that Moore REALLY hates (and just about everyone else) is GOVERNMENT.

              It's just that no one says that. They see trillions going to private companies via "bailouts", and then blame capitalism.

              Newsflash: the government is the one doing it, not the companies.

              Vote for Liberty - Vote Libertarian.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The only people stealing my money is the government.

        Everyone else, I voluntarily give them money for goods and services.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't  run my own life too much like a crazy roller coaster in which somtime I think  the US Government dose.  American politician are people too, born and raised in family similar to the mainstream American, it just the country is more extreme than any other country in the world. Over Capitalism is an extreme problem for the USA , even The President is puppeteered by the greedy rich in which tools also the military super power and religion. It all keeps slipping into over wealthy elitist hands.

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
            weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            clueless people from outside our borders, telling us what's wrong with our country.   And the next thing you know, describing how the ugly American is arrogant and condescening, trying to run everyone else's lives.   

            What on earth makes you think you know anything about what's wrong here?    If we start telling you how to run your country, you go and get all hostile...

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No calmer for your sleep I see!

            2. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If American didn’t own most of our big business, entertainment and we trade more with USA than all Europe combine. Canadian is too nice to say, mind your own business. For decade I did half of my business in the USA until Bush said UK is the USA new best friend and war buddies.

              For the very few American that want ugly show business, I am not against anything, knock yourself out, karma will get you in the end. My personally care is about my friends and family who live in the USA

            3. DTR0005 profile image85
              DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You know these people outside our borders may just have some idea of what is going on - just a little. And humor me on this one. To discredit any foreigner's opinion is to say that only we can get it "correct." If that were the case, you wouldn't be on here preaching for a return to a time that never really existed. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we, as Americans, are right 90% of the time. That's a really arrogant statement to make, but let's say it  - for argument's sake. Then 10% of the time someone other than an "American" gets it right, correct?
              I mean listen - your patriotism is remarkable. It's not my brand of patriotism, but it is "some" brand of patriotism nonetheless.
              It doesn't hurt to consider that maybe we didn't get it "right" 100 of the time. I mean our history, good and bad, points that out time and again. The problems that we have are the same problems any nation has.


              I mean we, as Americans, seem to have no problem, time and again, telling other nations how they should live, telling other nations who their friends should be, telling other nations how bad they are and how good we are, etc. If we are going to butt in literally "everywhere" around the globe, we can only expect that the rest of the globe will butt in on us from time to time. Now if you believe, as you may very well do, that we are "blessed" and "above" all other peoples on the earth, then I can see where your annoyance with the rest of the world comes from.

  9. mikelong profile image84
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Michael Moore is absolutely right....

  10. lady_love158 profile image60
    lady_love158posted 5 years ago

    Michael Moore is an IDIOT! He should be deported! Let's see... the government spends almost 4 Trillion a year and takes in a bit more than 2 trillion... if that isn't broke I don't know what is!!!

  11. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "4 Trillion a year and takes in a bit more than 2 trillion..." Half of what they take in goes to a private security company for the mega corporations called the armed services. In some quarters that would be called socialism. Take that out of the equation and the country is not broke.

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah...keeping the planet free takes a lot of money! I think the socialists around the globe should chip in a bit more... maybe America should send them a bill... or perhaps an ultimatum!

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well maybe fair enough if you actually supported socialism but while you do everything you can to oppress socialism, a bit cheeky don't you think?

        1. lady_love158 profile image60
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We allow socialism to exist in other countries by bearing the burden of policing the world... if those fifedoms had to pay their own way they'd all be bankrupt like portugal italy ireland and great britain

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well, we are no more bankrupt than the US and for pretty much the same reasons.

            We don't have many socialist banks in the UK.

    2. weholdthesetruths profile image59
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      you are t ruly ignorant.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Did you mean rudely ignorant

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
          weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Nope, truly ignorant.  You see, it would take the poster less than 60 seconds with Google to know how much the military spending is in Afghanistan and Iraq and how much total is spent on the military. 

          Also, his statement that every dollar that is "military" is just for the enrichment of big corporations is also just another lie. 

          But, since I feel charitable, I called him ignorant.   If he's not ignorant, he's a liar,  and ignorance can be excused and can be corrected.

          1. lady_love158 profile image60
            lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Not only that but the entire us military budget doesn't exceed a trillion dollars and even if you eliminated all of it you still have nearly a trillion in deficit... simple math!

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The American GDP is currently 14.2 trillion dollars.

              Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winner in economics, says the Iraq war has cost $3 trillion so far. According to the Guardian, "three trillion could have fixed America's social security problem for half a century." Some say today, it’s a trillion a year.

              Killing a million Iraqi on their soil wail no iraqi has killed an American on US soil must have some karma effect

              I sure dose in Iraq Some 60–70% of Iraqi children are suffering from psychological problem about 68% of Iraqis have no access to safe drinking water. As many as half of Iraqi doctors have left the country since 2003.

              What is this world is more of a waste of time, money, human lives with no resolves, than this?

            2. 0
              Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              @LadyLove,

              I thought you might like to see the actual cost of war...

              http://costofwar.com/en/

              1. lady_love158 profile image60
                lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Like I said that wouldn't put a dent in the deficit... that's 116 billion per year our budget is 3.7 Trillion our deficit is 1.6 Trillion per year for as far as the eye can see.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don’t even know to trust the figures of the Nobel peace prize winners anymore. Obama won the noble prize wail raising the war budget to the highest USA level ever

                  Moore I find is in the ball park with his stats, he stated - After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years, after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen In the meantime,

                  1. lady_love158 profile image60
                    lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You don't think Michael Moore has an agenda? Read this piece and see if you don't think differently about Moore. Clearly he is inciting violent revolution from our youth. I hardly think Moore is credible.

                    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blo … 7694/posts

  12. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    White man's burden.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It has been a white man's burden and now it's quickly changing for all people of colour and mainly the greedy whites are being force to change their bad habits to better all.

  13. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
    Karl Marx"

  14. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "and mainly the greedy whites are being force to change their bad habits to better all."
    I was just reading an article apropos to this subject.
    "The first thing is that nobody should have any illusions that the existing orders are going to go quietly into the night.  They are too deeply entrenched, too convinced of their entitlement to power, have too many resources at their disposal, and have too much to lose by easy capitulation.  They will use every trick in the book to undermine the cohesion, commitment, and resilience of the protesters."

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      True,

      In the long run my bet is on the people, my faith in the people would not allow the earth to turn into one huge ball of  burning crap.

  15. lady_love158 profile image60
    lady_love158posted 5 years ago

    I think all rich liberals should be taxed at the 94% rate... that would make everyone happy! smile

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why turn politician into God, the USA is already too religious.  How about a happy balance to lift the USA to be among the happiest countries in the world list

      1. 62
        ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Too religious" according to whom? By what measure?

      2. DannyMaio profile image59
        DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        too religious? This great country was found on religion and the constitution, why did this country become the super power? how has this country grown so that everyone wanted to come here?? did many want to go to Cuba?,Iran, Iraq etc... All you socialist jealous lazy morons just want to change what has shown to be successful. If any American wanted to be rich they have every opportunity to do so here. if your lazy and just want to live a hum drum life that is your business but do not try to take from someone who spent a lot of time and money to be successful just to help your lazy azz out. I was a democrat actually still registered as one, but the Dem party is now socialist. I do believe in helping but not when it is forced upon me.

  16. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "balance to lift the USA to be among the happiest countries in the world list" I believe according surveys the happiest countries in the world are all socialist.
    Denmark is rated the happiest.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      With Sweden up amongst them!

  17. TomC35 profile image59
    TomC35posted 5 years ago

    I recently saw John Stassel talking about how when taxes were raised on the rich people in NJ many of them just moved to Florida.  Okay, so the tax raises did not help NJ, but he failed to mention how FL gets money since they do not have an income tax.  They have higher sales taxes most likely.  The really rich people can just go out of state and get their shopping done if they really want, since jet setting seems to be no problem for them.  Thus due to all the different state rules and loopholes, the rich keep all their money, which they will not need in ten lifetimes, while the middle class has to take up more of the burden.

    1. bgamall profile image84
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is time to take the money back at the federal level. If they leave the US make their businesses leave to.

      1. 62
        ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Back"? Back from where?

    2. 62
      ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Who is to say "they will not need in ten lifetimes"? You? Is there some meteric inovlved in that or is it just plain, bitter jealousy?


      Drive business, jobs, and consumers out of your state = bad

      Drive business, jobs, and consumers out of the country = bad

  18. mikelong profile image84
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Lady....

    You rail against the "unconstitutional" acts of Obama...but yet you are right ready to deny Michael Moore his birthright, and deport him?

    For exercising his right to speak?


    Thank you for again proving my point about the true idiocy, hypocrisy, and arrogance that some feigning as "conservatives" represent...

    It was that type of backward thinking that lead to the deportation of American citizens (of Mexican descent) from this nation under the guise of a "helping lower unemployment" tactic during the Great Depression.....nonsense...

    But, you wouldn't know anything about that..... 

    1) These serious issues would constitute "whining" in your book...which I deem nothing more than a projection on your part...

    2) Closed minds and "lol" syndrome drain the ability needed to research the past and then correspond it to the present...

    For those who's politics mingle somewhere within the realm of Lady Unlove, it would be important to differentiate yourselves from her fringe-level ideations......or delusions...

    1. 62
      ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And how about the "fringe-level delusions" on the opposite end?

  19. lady_love158 profile image60
    lady_love158posted 5 years ago

    Michael Moors is also a rich man... a greedy rich man! He thinks the rich should give more to the government but he would like to be excluded from doing so.

    http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ … einsteins/

    Why doesn't Moore lead by example and give away HIS money? Do you really think Moors doesn't use every.possible trick when filing his income taxes to keep more of what he made?? This is the hypocrisy of the left! From Al Gore to John Kerry and even Obama (at some point you made enough money) himself

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Many of these people I like, I just don't get the greedy vibe from them.

      1. 62
        ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Gee, I wonder why?

      2. DannyMaio profile image59
        DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        then your a sucker! so to say, Obama donates such little money it is a joke, during the 2008 election they went through their tax returns and McCain and palin gave 7X more percentage wise not actual dollars then Obama/Biden.
        more did not hire union workers for his documentary but wants to stand and fight for them! yeah that is not a hypocrite.

    2. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So you think that because he is rich he should just sit back and let others steal off him!

      1. lady_love158 profile image60
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Of course not... just pointing out the hypocrisy of that slob.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But the article that you posted was solely about Moore suing for unpaid profits.
          No hypocrisy in that.

          1. lady_love158 profile image60
            lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If you read it you can see he is only suing for the press. But like anyone rich or poor how much he has is never enough... and that's fine UNTIL you start preaching about how everyone else has too much!

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What do you mean "he is only suing for the press"?

              And are you suggesting that because he has made it he should be happy to be ripped off?

            2. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Everybody else has too much! What, even those with little?

              1. lady_love158 profile image60
                lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well according to Moore the rich do... and that money isn't theirs... it belongs to everybody!  Now how can he espouse such an idea while keeping all his money and suing for more?

                http://www.breitbart.tv/michael-moore-w … from-them/

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Will, apart from agreeing that he's become a fat slob, I'm with him.
                  The wealthy are holding too much of our money and not lending it out to those who can use it to increase the wealth of more people.

                  We are in the same position, though we bailed the banks out they are not keeping their side of the deal, it's virtually impossible to get a mortgage or a small business loan though the banks still have plenty of money for gambling with and plenty of money to pay bonuses.

                  Sycophancy does not really suit you nor does it make any sense.

                  1. lady_love158 profile image60
                    lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The banks are a different issue... they should never gave been bailed out! However they aren't going to take the same risks they took that caused them to fail.

                  2. BillyDRitchie profile image60
                    BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Where is it again where the rich are required to "lend out" any of their hard earned money?

  20. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Yes--it's greed that is the Destroyer. Money is the prize. Who controls the money?

    "I care not who makes the policies."

    1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
      BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Money is power.  Always has been.  If you have money, you have power.

      You don't even have to be rich for this to be the case....simply remaining out of debt and unbeholden to others shifts power your way.

      Still waiting on LMC to tell me how much of my income she is entitled to.  Odd how nobody wants to answer that question.....it really is very simple....

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well answer me how much of my income the rich are entitled to!

        1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
          BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The inability to answer a straight question never ceases to amaze me....

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It was a perfectly straight question, "how much of my money are the rich entitled to" and it is just as valid as your question.

            1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
              BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Um, John, I asked you first, numerous times.  Decorum dictates that you answer the question that was posed to you first before responding with one of your own.

              Unless of course you realize that answering it pretty much shatters any validity you have tried to establish on this issue...

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                OK, the government is entitled to as much of their money back as they see fit!

                Your turn now.

                1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
                  BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Not what I asked......try again....

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You'll have to remind me of your changed question then.

                2. 62
                  ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "back"? Back from where?

                3. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  And, you've just asked for a dictatorship.

                  Good job on that.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, seeing as how we are the government, I don't see it as asking for a dictatorship!

      2. 69
        logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think she has to confer with John first. It seems like, to him, money doesn't belong to those who earn it, rather to anyone that stakes a claim to it. smile

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Of course it doesn't belong to the person that earns it, it belongs to the government!
          If you don't believe me try making your own and see how far you get!

  21. joshhunt83 profile image60
    joshhunt83posted 5 years ago

    How about Jacques Fresco's "Resource Based Economy" as an alternative. It isn't perfect but it would solve a lot of our current problems.

  22. Daniel Carter profile image90
    Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago

    It's quite safe to say that Michael Moore is in considered wealthy in a time when more and more people are falling into income brackets below the poverty line. If he's so concerned, perhaps he should have been the brains behind the "Secret Millionare" series now on TV.

    Put your money where your mouth is....

  23. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Oh, by the way at no point do I say that Walmart is evil, that's a figment of your imagination." I'll say it. Walmart is evil. It is cheaper no doubt and people need cheaper because they are of out of or have less work, because the jobs have  gone to China thanks in Part to companies like Walmart.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ah no, it was a figment of his imagination that I said it, I made no mention of what I thought smile

  24. TPSicotte profile image89
    TPSicotteposted 5 years ago

    Every time I read a thread like this I am amused and intrigued by the different perspectives of Americans. The one thing I find disgusting and the ultimate in hypocrisy is the reactionary comment 'if he doesn't like it here why doesn't he just move to ___'. This truly moronic statement always drops the tone of thread down a few notches. I really don't understand how this mentality developed. America is supposedly based on freedoms and that includes freedom of speech, at least I thought that was the excuse for all the crap I see on the web. But when someone uses that freedom to criticize some aspect of American culture or politics it is often suggested they should leave.

    No matter what one thinks of Michael Moore personally, that has nothing to do with the topic of this forum thread. The thread is about a conceptualization of American wealth and whether or not certain corporations and individuals have far more than their fair share and what they have honestly earned. Ad hominem attacks on Mr. Moore are pointless and only make the attacker look like a pandering fool. Any American, if I am to understand correctly, is allowed to have an opinion, especially if they think sharing that opinion will in some way better their country. But a blatant personal attack in the middle of a discussion of this nature just seems sad. Is Michael Moore some great patriot? I doubt it. Does he engage in the dissemination of biased editorial propaganda? A lot of the time, sure. Is he any worse than fox news? Highly unlikely.

    But does the size of his pants matter? Should he have to leave the country because you don't like his point of view? This type of ‘no one can criticize’ mentality also was in evidence en masse when America went into Iraq and anyone who questioned the assumption about the presence of WMDs  it was intimated was somehow a traitor and anti-American. How did critical thinking and a healthy skepticism about the political or economic status quo become anathema? The need to personally attack those we don't agree with us is a true sign of stunted emotional intelligence. The need to control those who disagree with our point of view by engaging in insecure outbursts and name calling is truly a sad reflection of a person's character. The fact that others reinforce and encourage this behavior is a form of mass diffusion of responsibility that really is deplorable.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think Moore is being kind, the greedy rich not so nice, they have great ways to brain wash you and own you. They get you to send money you do not have, here is one example.

      I saw homeless man buy cup of coffee for a dollar used an interact costing $1.50 and gave a tip of $1.50, is this guy a nut case. OH no, If you multiply that coffee price by a ½ million,that’s how middle class person would buy a house in Vancouver Canada,

      No wonder middle class are becoming homeless.

      North America’s obsession with big houses has lowered the consumer confidence of 2/3 of the population in the USA that can not afford housing.

      1. bgamall profile image84
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, compared to Wall Street, Moore has nothing. I wish lady love would quit defending people who give a rats behind about her!

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          YEEEH the RICH!!! , screw the poor.

          1. 62
            ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Why?

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I'm kidding, read my other posts.

        2. lady_love158 profile image60
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Im not defending wall street im defending freedom! They have a right to earn as much as they can legally earn and good for them! Moore's idea that there is a limited amount of wealth and that is owned by everyone is pure marxism its hypocritical on its fave no matter how much money he has or doesn't have!

          1. wormdo profile image60
            wormdoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sad as it is, there is a limited amount of wealth.  Where there are rich people there must be poor people, that's just simple economics. As you seem (I'm guessing here, I'm not sure?) to be a supporter of capitalism, surely you're aware of this? The idea that financially people cannot or should not be equal is a pure capitalist idea. If we were all, say, a million dollars richer tomorrow, every single one of us in the entire world, then prices would just rise accordingly.

            1. lady_love158 profile image60
              lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No wealth is not limited! Wealth expands with investment and inonvation. Even the poor in America are much better off than they were years ago many have the latest modern conveniences and we are seeing this in other nations as well. Sure thee will always be poor people and maybe that isn't fair but who ever said life is fair? We all can be whatever we want we can all achieve anything its just a matter of desire, determination, and attitude and knowing you're not entitled to.anything you don't  earn!

              http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmuDEoDBLl41iGzv_kKMCJNtOPx0HmS6CNYI4OGWYbEBsAyR-elw

              1. wormdo profile image60
                wormdoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The poor are not better off. $50 now would have been the equivalent of our modern thousands to them. Appliances they would have considered only for the rich have decreased in price and value, meaning they have become more accessible. This doesn't have anything to do with the poor becoming richer, but with the decreasing monetary value of other things.

                The idea that we only need desire and determination to get through in life is a wonderful one, and I'm sure it's true for some. Unfortunately it can't be true for everyone, and saying it is just sounds like another way of calling those unlucky enough to be below the poverty line lazy to me.

                1. lady_love158 profile image60
                  lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The chart I posted says different. And yes if you can't make it in this world you are either handicapped to the point where you can't care for yourself or you live in a country without law order and security or you're just plain lazy.

                  1. wormdo profile image60
                    wormdoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What if you're unemployed through no fault of your own but because there are five to ten people to every job in this current age? What if the only jobs you are able to get (because of lack of prior experience or relevant education you cannot afford) are ones that barely even pay minimum wage?

                    I am currently employed in a job I love, and I thank my lucky stars every day, because before this I was unemployed and having just come out of university, had very little employment experience. I was terrified that I would never be able to support myself and would have to burden my family by moving back home. I'm extremely lucky and that didn't happen, but lots of graduates like me haven't been so lucky. They cannot all be lazy.

              2. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                B*llsh1t!

                How many of the super rich really earn their money, do they do a daily stint on the end of a shovel or any other productive work?

                No they don't, they play with money, that's all.

                1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
                  BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  And something is wrong with this....how?   Since when does the amount of physical labor you put in vs the amount of mental labor applied become the deciding factor in who makes what?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, there is something wrong with it, people who have money by virtue of having money do nothing but make money. They don't produce anything, they just take off others.

                2. lady_love158 profile image60
                  lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Obviously you value physical labor over intectual labor... trust me making money by investment requires tremendous effort and time more then the 8 hour day of the man with the shovel and there are risks involved too as well as extreme pressure to perform... its not as easy as you think.

                3. 62
                  ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No one "earns their money" unless they use a shovel? Really? Is that where your understanding of economics stops?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, but it might be were my understanding of the English language stops!

                    1. to receive (salary, wages, etc.) for one's labor or service
                    2. to get or deserve as a result of something one has done

                4. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm gonna have to call you out on the BS-o'meter.

                  Look at the poorest people today, and compare them to the poorest 50 years ago.

                  ... and your argument is baseless. Have fun.

                  "How many of the super rich earn their money"

                  All of them, actually. If you don't believe me, then you simply have no trust in humanity. IF you can't understand that PEOPLE WILLINGLY PAY THOSE PEOPLE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for their services, then It's hopeless to argue with you.

                  Go ahead - run Microsoft for 20 days. But don't go asking for a bailout when it's bankrupt.

                  Typing more is pointless.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    OK, look at the poorest people today, they can buy a used tv for a fraction of the cost of one 50 years ago, big deal! It doesn't actually make them better off.

                    Do people really willingly pay these people billions of dollars? There is nearly an uprising in the UK over the £9 million bonus paid to the director of one of the banks that had to be bailed out last year!

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But there is only a limited amount of wealth and it is owned by everyone!

            Evan tells us that the problem with the monetary system is that it is detached from gold, imagine if it was reattached to gold and it isn't to hard to see that any one person owning a disproportionate amount of that gold would be able to hold the country to ransom.

            The fact that the gold standard has been abolished doesn't do away with the basic principle, any country that just prints money is devaluing itself, there isn't actually any more there.

            1. 62
              ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              " there is only a limited amount of wealth and it is owned by everyone!"


              No

              and

              No

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes

                and

                Yes.

                You don't really believe that some are entitled to all the money do you?

                1. 62
                  ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Wealth is not limited (study some economics)

                  Privately owned goods are not owned by all (study some law and political science)


                  Is it your intention to try and fit every topic into your Communist world view?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I have studied economics at the feet of the great Evan G Rogers who says that we should have maintained the connection with gold.
                    There isn't a limitless amount of gold is there, nor a limitless amount of grain, or oil, or pretzels, or money. (Study some economics)

                    I have never claimed that privately owned goods are owned by all (study some comprehension)

                    I don't have a communist world view, I have a socialist/capitalist view of the world.

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "people who own a lot of gold will be able to control everyone"

              You fail to understand basic economics: Supply and demand.

              Typing more would be a waste of time.

  25. mikelong profile image84
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Lady, you still need to clarify which regulations and which taxes you would do away with...

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      When I am elected President I'll present a detailed plan! Lol

      1. dutchman1951 profile image61
        dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        spoken with true republican spin, you need a button that reads "JLR"

        "Just like Romney!"....smile

        we need to change your sign on to Love_spin158!!!!!!

        just messin with ya lady, don't mean anything by it..smile

        1. lady_love158 profile image60
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Lol! I don't care you're entitled to your opinion! I've already spoken about the cuts id make to start with Obamacare then everything else that isn't in the constitution halve defense close our foreign bases and secure our borders then cut corporate taxes to the lowest rate in the world! There fixed it!

  26. BobbiRant profile image79
    BobbiRantposted 5 years ago

    You need to see the documentary: Inside Job and THEN you all might get it.  Yes the systematic dismantling of the Entire world economy was orchestrated and by a FEW who have a smash and grab mentality, like looters do during a riot.  Harvard, Yale and UCLA professors are Helping bring it down by being Paid consultants to big companies telling them how to do it.  Wake Up America!!!!!!!!!  You have the American Dream do you?

    1. 62
      ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ah, more conspiracy theories, just what we needed!

  27. crazyhorsesghost profile image86
    crazyhorsesghostposted 5 years ago

    If America is not broke then what would you call it.

    1. 46 Million Americans live at or below poverty level.
    2. 13 Million American Children are in danger of going hungry every night.
    3. 14.000 People live on the streets in downtown New Orleans.
    4. Thousands live under bridges in Miami.
    5. All our textile, steel, and automobile jobs were shipped overseas.
    6. America is in debt up to the point where it can never be repaid

    So if its not broke what would you call it.

    The Republicans and the Democrats did it and we listened to their spin while they did it. Kind of like Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned. America is in serious trouble and if we continue to play political party games it is doomed.

    1. 62
      ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      5 & 6 are not true, and the rest are things that can be improved but that will exist everywhere and always to one degree or another. Economic growth and strong communities are able tools for doing so.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        In North America a 1970s CEO made 25 times more than the average person wage and I made $20 an hour as a brick mason then. Today a CEO makes 350 times greater than the average income. My wages today would have remains the same if I was still working as in the stated in the 1970s. Housing has gone up by 30 times or more since.

      2. crazyhorsesghost profile image86
        crazyhorsesghostposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I really how you could say our jobs have not been shipped over seas. The American Textile Industry has been destroyed. All those jobs are gone over seas.

        How can we ever repay the debt America owes with out creating two classes of people in the USA which would be the rich and the very poor.

        The Democrats and the Republicans broke the country and each and everyone of them should be thrown out of office. If we banned all lobbyist and imposed term limits on U.S. Senators and Congressmen then we would have a different country.

        It will take completely changing the American Political system to ever fix the country and every Democrat and Republicans should go. We need a party that will be for America first and to hell with any other country.

    2. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, it's not broke, just too much money in the wrong hands.

    3. dutchman1951 profile image61
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Crazyhorse, the reasons you have given are not because we are broke. They exhist because we have a for sale Congress and Senate and State Goverments who realize poverty is big business and very profitable, and they are not willing to fix it, and give up the Lobbying perks!

  28. mikelong profile image84
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Lady....the "wait til I'm president" line doesn't work...

    If you can't inform us poor electorate now, how can you argue anything?

  29. BillyDRitchie profile image60
    BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago

    This is for John.....sell something for more than it cost to make it?  What is that called again?  Oh, yeah, PROFIT!  Silly me.....

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There is profit and there is exploitation. Only you and your like could confuse that.

      1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
        BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, I'll bite.....what is "my like" again?  (This should be good).

        I think most people would agree that a fair price for a service or product is the cost of whatever that product/service is worth, plus a nice profit for the one providing that service.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What like we are lauding the bank director for his £9 million bonus, and I'll remind you that bonuses are paid on top of his normal several million pound remuneration!

          1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
            BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And the problem is?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So you think that people should be rewarded for fouling up!


              OK then, forget it.

              1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
                BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If you are talking about driving a business into the ground, then no, he shouldn't be awarded any bonus at all.

                On the flip side, if he has taken it and made it a success, then he deserves every penny.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That is exactly what I'm talking about, payment for failure!

                  Do you really think any other remuneration is any more reasonably thought out?

  30. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    Bill,
    you seem to think that outrageously high remuneration is justified, perhaps you would like to comment on this though I'll understand it if you can't.

    My ex brother in law worked for either ICL or IBM, though it doesn't really matter for the sake of discussion.
    The company was bought by the Japanese who immediately disposed of the top layer of management!
    This had absolutely no impact on the productivity of the company, so they got rid of the next layer of management which likewise had absolutely no impact on productivity, so they kept on going until productivity started to react!

    Can you explain to me why they were wrong to do that and how the sacked management were actually earning their extremely high remuneration?

    1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
      BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I cannot speak to the situation you mention because I am not familiar with it.

      For me it is quite simple.  If a company CEO can successfully negotiate a large contract, and the programs they put into place result in massive profits for the company, I have zero problem with them receiving equally stellar compensation.

      Good CEOs will also know where to cut waste, as evidenced by the illustration you just provided......

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Erm, the CEOs were the first to go!

        Do you really think CEOs negotiate contracts! That is usually the responsibility of much more lowly workers. They might go out for a meal to do the final bits but not the negotiation. If you think it's worth several millions a year to pay somebody to do lunch...

        1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
          BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Um, I hate to break it to you, John, but even if they did cut the top tiers of management, SOMEBODY was still left with the responsibility of running the company.......i.e. a CEO.

          And yes, CEO's do in fact negotiate their contract when tapped to run a given company.  I'm not sure where you would get the idea that they don't......

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sure, somebody was left with the responsibility of running the company, not running it into the ground.

            Funny, when I worked in industry we had a sales department that did all the sales work, including negotiating contracts. The boss did beggar all apart from play golf and refuse us a pay rise because he'd just bought a new Rolls Royce and there wasn't enough money left!

            1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
              BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well, right or wrong, it is his money and his decision.  If you are unhappy with your wages, then you are perfectly free to seek out employment in a more suitable and rewarding environment.

              Or does that make too much sense?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                But was it his money? I don't think he made it playing golf and he certainly didn't work on the shop floor! He certainly didn't have the money to build the factory and he didn't have enough to provide surety for the loan to build and equip the factory and he didn't have enough money to repay the loan without people working for him and doing it for him.

                As for moving, doesn't 99.9% of industry work in exactly the same way?

 
working